[ Linked Image ]

A friend of mine - who reenacts - once told me that sword-and-buckler was only meant to be a combination of sidearms given to lightly armoured soldiers, like archers and billmen. For him, men-at-arms and knights would pick longswords as sidearms, instead of a arming sword and a buckler, since his armor would render the shield useless.

But after I researched in Manuscript Miniatures website I actually evidence for men-at-arms and well clad soldiers using the arming sword and the buckler, but I don't know if I actually should interpretate the illustrations in that way without considering context (e.g.: duel or location's praticity), so I would like to know your opinion:

I) A man-at-arms could be equipped with sword n' buckler combination or would he always be inclined towards the longsword? Arming Sword without buckler could be a option or this is Hollywood stuff?

II) Armor makes bucklers a redudant thing at all? Is this form of fencing mainly designed for lightly armoured fighters?


http://manuscriptminiatures.com/search/?tags=%22buckler%22

There are many artistic depictions with people armoured that caeey a buckler, which I am sure you already found, so I went looking for effigies, which I value a bit higher as a source.

These were hard to find. I found one in the Malvern Abbey church, with a warhammer and mail. http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/cache/eff..._large.jpg